mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

IDP-PGFE: An Interpretable Disruption Predictor based on Physics-Guided Feature Extraction

arXiv 2208.13197 ↗First posted 28 Aug 2022physics.plasm-ph cs.AI cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Disruption prediction has made rapid progress in recent years, especially in machine learning (ML)-based methods. Understanding why a predictor makes a certain prediction can be as crucial as the prediction's accuracy for future tokamak disruption predictors. The purpose of most disruption predictors is accuracy or cross-machine capability. However, if a disruption prediction model can be interpreted, it can tell why certain samples are classified as disruption precursors. This allows us to tell the types of incoming disruption and gives us insight into the mechanism of disruption. This paper designs a disruption predictor called Interpretable Disruption Predictor based On Physics-guided feature extraction (IDP-PGFE) on J-TEXT. The prediction performance of the model is effectively improved by extracting physics-guided features. A high-performance model is required to ensure the validity of the interpretation results. The interpretability study of IDP-PGFE provides an understanding of J-TEXT disruption and is generally consistent with existing comprehension of disruption. IDP-PGFE has been applied to the disruption due to continuously increasing density towards density limit experiments on J-TEXT. The time evolution of the PGFE features contribution demonstrates that the application of ECRH triggers radiation-caused disruption, which lowers the density at disruption. While the application of RMP indeed raises the density limit in J-TEXT. The interpretability study guides intuition on the physical mechanisms of density limit disruption that RMPs affect not only the MHD instabilities but also the radiation profile, which delays density limit disruption.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2022.

Builds on

10 of 69 references.

References · 10

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  3. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  4. 2018This Looks Like That: Deep Learning for Interpretable Image Recognitioncited by 737
  5. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 443
  6. 2022Scaling Laws vs Model Architectures: How does Inductive Bias Influence Scaling?cited by 103
  7. 2020Towards Unifying Feature Attribution and Counterfactual Explanations: Different Means to the Same Endcited by 66
  8. 2020Hybrid deep learning architecture for general disruption prediction across tokamakscited by 17
  9. 2015DART: Dropouts meet Multiple Additive Regression Treescited by 15
  10. 2021Scenario adaptive disruption prediction study for next generation burning-plasma tokamakscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

3 papers.